The 8.4 PIO FGX has just been nominated for a Volvo SportsDesign Award to be presented at ISPO 2007, February 3 in Munich.
The competition honors the best products focused on the theme "Personal Design".
Check out the competition here Volvo SportsDesign AWARD
Labels: 8.4 PIO FGX, award, design, football, Germany, hummel, ISPO
20 Comments:
It seems obvious !
;)
Why would you make a soccer shoe that look like a Louis Vuitton purse? Very few soccer players are David Beckam. You clearly don't understand the subculture you are designing for.
Next!
I think you are mistaken and maybe you dont truely understand the subculture this boot targets.
It is indeed made for the player like a David Beckham who wants to express their personality and individualism.
For sure this is not every player (and we do make lots of more traditional boots as well), but there is a growing market of "Rock Star" player personalities, both pro and rec, that want something different. Surely the consumer who looks up to David Beckham and others is influenced by the style, over-the-top design and Character now more than ever a part of the sport.
In designing this boot, we well know that its not for everyone. Thats just great. Some want to be different, and others want the same as everyone else. hummel, as a company is looking to be an alternative to the masses, for those players that dont want to wear the same thing everyone else does, with added style and performance. This boot is an ultimate expression of that!
In addition, I can surely tell you by sales alone, we truely do understand the subculture of the market!
R
R
Understand the subculture means understanding the vernacular of the aesthetic in the culture. This shoe in no way reflect the style and aesthetic of athletics or soccer or most importantly the performance of this product. It's a misplaced veneer that attempts to piggy-back onto dated trendy fashion.
To me this looks like designers got in the way of design. "Hey this will be cool because I like it" I think there is an integrity in defining "good" aesthetics that is grossly lacking in this product.
Alternative to the masses is great I am a huge advocate, and practitioner of that too. But just because it is different than the pack, doesn't mean it is therefore better than the pack, especially on high end niche products.
People bought Deschamp's "shit in can" for millions, does that mean it was great. It means consumer will buy what they are offered. Our job is to have a higher level of integrity in what we are acutally offering
I disagree.
As mentioned, the aesthetic of the sport is changing and is embracing fashion, lifestyle, and personality into the traditions of the sport ande performance. Just look at the cross-pollination of soccer and fashion in Bikkembergs Football fashion/sport collections, the celebrity and fashion influence of players like beckham, and the pro players who now also want to stand out with gold, white or flashy boots.
You may not like the aesthetics and thats fine. As mentioned, this boot wasnt made to appeal to everyone. You can still have a more traditional style to suit your own character. This is exactly the concept with our new collection. Different boots for different types of players. Some want a purely traditional black leather boot, some want a technical style and others want something with a lifestyle/fashion appeal to it. To each their own.
I certainly dont think that Designers got in the way of the Design in this case. The deisgn is purposefully made to appeal to a market, and in no way is performance and technical features sacrificed. This boots, if you have read the specs, features some of the top performance materials, features and details of any boot on the market.
As well, your assesment of consumers as buying anything they are presented with I believe is flawed at its core. Many of products dont sell. Product design and supply is by its very nature democratic in the that there are many choices for consumers to select from and nobody is forced to buy anything.
if this product didnt appeal to a market, it wouldnt sell. Simple as that. Supply and demand. Basic economics 101.
Like it or not, I dont think the integrity of this product or the design can be questioned. It is 100% upfront to what it is, 100% honest in its approach and if anything undercuts the lack of integrity in many other products in the market that base a selling proposition on a celebrity endorsement or a marketing claim like "20% more power".
R
This epitomizes my issues with consultant designers. There has to be a way to evaluate design on a higher plane than I like this and you like that. Not that there is a universal aesthetic everyone will like, but come on this is a purse with cleats!!
I understand the parallelisms with sports and fashion, but this like the kind of crap that will have Spain's national jersey for next World Cup be tight boy shorts and plunging necklines with pasties to hide there nipples.
Explain to me how the design of this shoe even remotely relates to the performance advancements that you are tauting. It doesn't, it is pure sex, which in theory I'm not opposed to. But the sex that this design is offering is quite tainted because it LOOKS LIKE A PURSE!
Aesthetics are not purely subjective, they have measurable value and appropriateness. This doesn't measure up, because of the subculture it should be designed for.
You sound like a very frustrated designer. I feel sorry for you.
For one, this was done done as a consultant. I am the Footwear Department Manager for hummel, and this design/project was done with the support of the entire company from marketing to sales and CEO level. I should also mention that it is one of our most successful projects in sales and marketing to date and the pros we work with are lining up to get into this boot.
In my opinion, I dont think you do understand the parallels between sport and fashion. As you have used beckham as an example, just consider what kind of boot he would likely wear if he had the choice and wasnt getting paid millions by Adidas. As you have suggested, it likely would be something like this. If anything, I would argue, this more closely matches the lifestyle and attitude to those players who sport the Gucci, Prada and bling off field than the normal mass market boots the big companies are paying them to wear to sell down to the average consumer.
The overt design and treatment of this boot doesnt represent the technology. You are right. Rather, the concept is that the juxtaposition of the included technology and statement fashion appeal is what makes this boot interesting. As a designer and follower of many "design" objects, I surely think that the base of technology and performance is much greater than the standard "take a base product and slap a limited edition label, co-branded name, and fancy colors on it" approach.
In every way, from style to performance this boot is made for the player who is looking for something unique and high value.
Still, if you could substantiate your claims of missing the subculture in design, I would be happy to hear. Just point me in the direction of what you think is appropriate in design for the market, and then lets talk.
R
I'm not sure what the first comment is about but i was going to say how much I appreciate your responsiveness on this debate on design. Your level of accessibility is quite commendable. For me being able to articulate and justify design decisions is with other designers is about as much fun as you can have in a conversation; especially if you don't agree.
Here is were I think the fallacy lies in the design decisions that were made in regards to this shoe. To much emphasis has been placed on being David Beckam.You stated that this is better than paying athletes millions to wear and shameless promote your shoes; I say that this a deviation of the very same idea. You are targeting your design after a "flash in the pan" player whose success has much less to do with soccer and more to do with his life off the field.
This shoes reflects that same focus; off the field aesthetics. my point is that understanding the subculture of soccer is much deeper than what you read about these players in the gossip column in the paper that happens to be next to the article on what the new purse fad will be. Yes people will gravitate towards this shoe if Beckam or Beckam-like player wear it; but again that for me does not validate the effectiveness of this design. The fact that corporate Hummel bought off on the idea also has no impact on the validity of this design.
How the product related the environment that it is designed for, and how it fulfills a wanting need, and potential to do things better than has been done before are more in line with the criteria for effective design. I don't think there should be a separation that the functional aspect of the shoe is separate for the form and finish of the shoe. There are indicitive of each other. So the same things of relating to the environment it will inhabit is as much an aesthetic question as it is function likewise with fulfilling needs and potential for improvement are all aesthetic question as well as function question to evaluate a design.
Mimicking trendy fashion patterns and slapping it on a shoe and calling it great does none of those things.
I as well enjoy a thoughtful and provoking discussion. Working on this project for more than 1 year, with a lot of thought gone into it, I am happy to explain the concept and direction behind the shoe which may not be evident just looking at at photo of the final product.
For sure David Bekham is one guy, but I do believe that more player are taking his cue and expressing their own presonalities on the field as well as off. We all know that each person/play is an indidual, os why not cater to that in the design of a performance product. A football boot is but the one product a player can actually express themselves (the uniform and all other equipment is dtermined by the team kit).
Im not aying that people will wear this because beckham does (he doesnt), but rather there are other players in all levels of the game that have a similar personality. Wanting to be different and stand out is not limited to those players pulling down mulit-million contracts.
I also disagree that style and identity has anything to do with talent. Beckham, for example (while we ar eusing him as an example) has been a top talent for his squad for a long time. His style and presence is not a replacement for his skill. This is also true for many other players at all levels of play. As mentioned, the technology and performance of this boot are there for playre of top skill and talent and in now ayar ecatering towards an "all sizzile no substance" player.
The backing of hummel corporate does in fact, I argue back the validity of this design. You mentioned that this design is purely the product of a design and not in touch with the market and culture of the sport. By contrast, the backing of hummel and commercial success demonstrates the rounded benefit of the product and appropriateness of it in all senses of market, sales and branding.
I dont mind that you feel the aesthetics should be part of the features and benefits of performance aspect of the product. I just feel differently. So do you feel an aesthetically designed shoes should be only style and no substance? Should a technical product look as though it was designed by engineers with no sense of style? the practice of design is to combine both form an function. There is planty on the boot that speaks to the function (glass fibre heel counter, outsole design, custom lacing eyestay, etc.), but indeed there is an aspect of fashion applied on top. I believe it is well integrated into the style.
This is more than a patten applied to a shoe. Even in the application there is innovation (first application of laser etching in a football boot). The balance is the secret of the design.
R
R - "I do believe that more player are taking his cue and expressing their own personalities on the field as well as off. We all know that each person/play is an individual, os why not cater to that in the design of a performance product"
This is exactly my point from the beginning. This shoe looks like a purse. Making the design decision to so closely emulate fashion is a huge step in the wrong direction. The fact that all-star players are fashion whores off the field doesn't mean we should design shoes that look like their wives purses!!!! BAD DESIGN DECISION!!!
This off the field influences does not represent the futbol subculture, it represents pop-culture. This is what I mean. Make soccer shoe for soccer, it can be sexy too! All black doesn't mean soccer, it is just what has been done. If you can't think of soccer related aesthetics, TRY HARDER!
R - "By contrast, the backing of hummel and commercial success demonstrates the rounded benefit of the product and appropriateness of it in all senses of market, sales and branding."
Since when has any corporation had any idea what the subculture they are designing for wants or needs? Business 101 - They sell things that other people tell them to make. Designers pitched this design to them they bought it because of how "we " presented it. They don't know what's "good" they know how to sell and distribute and manufacture. We are suppose to know what's good. Corporation don't define users, we as designer should define the corporation to meet the users needs.
R - "There is planty on the boot that speaks to the function (glass fibre heel counter, outsole design, custom lacing eyestay, etc.)"
This stuff is like the jewelry on a large breasted woman; you only notice it when it is pointed out. The aesthetics of this shoe are defined by the laser etching process, which again using a cool process doesn't mean the design is cool. This is the part that makes it look like a purse. The pattern clearly rips off L.V.
R - "The balance is the secret of the design."
I might just be argumentative know but ina way I disagree with this. To me this implies that take a little function and you put it on this side, then you'll need a little style to pretty it up and whoa-laa, you have yourself some good design (WRONG) I think when it is done right to two become seamless. For example if the laser etching in someway enhanced the function;this doesn't have to mean that the pattern won't be attractive and stylish, or if some one would quite shying away from the lacing and actually use them in an artistic way to enhance the player ability to strike the ball including the eyelets.
It should be design soup, everything stirred together to make a delicious result in which it is tough to identify the individual components. Not playing copy cat to what some people might be buying in a different market.
Clearly, you have a very misguided perception of the role of design and a designer.
In all your comments, the only common thread I get is that for some reason you feel everyone else but you is wrong.
1. The players who like the boot as a technical performance product are wrong ?
2. The consumers who like the boot as something unique to express their personality are wrong?
(2b. Players are also wrong for having this personality and embracing this subculture?)
3. The designers who created this product are wrong?
4. The company who supports this product and has been in the Football market (and subculture) since 1923 are wrong?
5. The Volvo SportsDesign AWARD jury who selected this boot as a nominee for good design and an example of Personal Design are wrong?
6. The professional players like David Beckham who mix fashion, lifestyle and sport are wrong?
...and you are right?
D- "Making the design decision to so closely emulate fashion is a huge step in the wrong direction."
So you believe design should not be influenced by the trend setters and top players of the sport?
D-"This off the field influences does not represent the futbol subculture, it represents pop-culture. This is what I mean."
The of field lives, fashion, style and personality of the players (and not only the pros) is the very definition of subcuture. It is the culture under (sub) the cuture of the sport. Pop (popular) culture is something altogether different (like if we did a boot tied in with a blockbuster movie).
Again, I would be happy to hear your definition of football "subculture" and an example of what you see fit..
D- "Make soccer shoe for soccer, it can be sexy too!"
I agree 100% with this goal. Perhaps the only rational thing you've said. Indeed, in one line, you have described this project. Check. Done that,
D- "Since when has any corporation had any idea what the subculture they are designing for wants or needs?"
So companies have no idea how to do business? You know better than a company that has been involved with football since 1923 what the sport is about?
D- "We are suppose to know what's good. Corporation don't define users, we as designer should define the corporation to meet the users needs. "
So you see designers as the only part of the equation that know anything? What about sales, marketing, testing? Design is one part, but an important part of the big picture.
And still, here is a design that you are against because somehow you dont support the collective decision of hummel's designers.
Feel free to dislike the product, but you cant be on both sides of the fence saying in one sentence design has a right to choose and decide, and at the same time rebuke design for make a decision in creating this product.
D- "It means consumer will buy what they are offered."
You also feel that consumers are stupid too?
This boot isnt for everyone as I keep on mentioning, but because you wouldnt wear it doesnt mean that the design, designer, company or players who would, are wrong.
I keep going on about the subculture of the sport but yet provide no foundation of your opinion. Get over the fact that this product is perfectly on target for a group that perhaps you may not be a part of.
You are not the arbiter of the world's taste.
More interestingly, I would like to know what you see as the subculture of football? If you are a football player, what do you identify with? I'm sure we also have a style of boot to fit your character.
To Daniel:
If Rkuchinsky feels the need of making a purse, then he would have done a purse!! But this is a boot that is supposed to stand out, therefor the purpose of making them in a limited edition for the people who wants something extra and unique! You seem to like classic design, most certainly Adidas Copa Mundial which is a lovely boot for its simplicity. Hummels slogan is "I have character" and I don't think you can get a special character from a pair of 25 years old boot!
I have Hummels and they are and will probably remain the best looking boots I have ever owned!
If the boots aren't "you", why bother so much?
First of all let's get the terminology straight.
R -"The of field lives, fashion, style and personality of the players (and not only the pros) is the very definition of subculture. It is the culture under (sub) the culture of the sport. "
The term subculture refers to the categorical breakdown of a society. It is not the underlining action of a culture. It is a methods of breaking down larger groups into smaller groups. The subculture in question in the culture of soccer. What you are referring to is other subcultures influence on the subculture of soccer. This is exactly where we differ on how to translate the culture. You are using external influence to define what the subcultures aesthetic is, what I am saying is the instead of looking outward, it would have been more appropriate to look at the internal influences within the sport of soccer to find an aesthetic direction. If all you can find by looking at soccers culture is copa mundials then no wonder you copied a purse.
R - "Feel free to dislike the product, but you cant be on both sides of the fence saying in one sentence design has a right to choose and decide, and at the same time rebuke design for make a decision in creating this product."
This really troubles me. It sounds like you are opposed to any critique that doesn't agree with your solution. Absolutely I can ride that fence. I have tried to iterate to you that I am not displeased with this design because it does not align with my sense of style or preferences; but rather that I don't appreciate the design decisions made. I am trying to critique this product on the merits that you have presented it with. If we disagree with the approach and direction for reasons beyond that we don't like the look I think it is our responsibility to say so. There are a lot of product that I don't like the look of but I can appreciate the design decisions that we made to determine it appearance. It all comes full circle to my first comment. This design is unsuccessful because it has no relation to the subculture of futbol. Soccer jerseys have been widely influenced by modern fashion yet still retain there ultimate aesthetic appeal to soccer. This shoe completely abandon my aesthetic related to soccer and sucks the hind tit of fashion. Again this is not that I just don't like the look it is that I don't like the decisions made in order to establish the look. I think there is a fundamental difference. You could have come up with a thousand different pattern with the thought of just fashion in mind I would not like any of them because they clearly don't reflect soccer, Which if not mistaken(even though I lack of 84 years of experience in the game) is what environment a soccer shoe exists in.
"D- "Make soccer shoe for soccer, it can be sexy too!"
Again, thanks for responding to my comments. I love hearing how other people articulate and defend design decisions. I completely disagree with alot of what you say but I can't deny that you are passionate and dedicated to your process. I looks as though you produce a high quality product in terms of its performance. Maybe next time we will see eye to eye on how to determining the proper aesthetic of a superior product.
Respectfully,
Daniel
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subculture
sub·cul·ture
3. Sociology.
a. the cultural values and behavioral patterns distinctive of a particular group in a society.
b. a group having social, economic, ethnic, or other traits distinctive enough to distinguish it from others within the same culture or society.
Indeed we may agree. A subculture is a breaking down of a culture to smaller identifiable groups.
This is exactly what I was identifying in the subculture of the players who are inspired and influenced by fashion and take fashion into their character both on and off the field.
These are the "cultural values and behavioral patterns distinctive of a particular group in a society". Im not ever claiming that this niche market applies to all footballers, or, obviously yourself, but I would like to see how you could claim these values and behaviours are not present in some subset of players.
As mentioned in our whole approach for the collection, the hummel football products are specifically each targeted to a different subculture or Character profile.
The 8.4 PIO is designed for the subculture that appreciates and desires fashion, luxury, and uniqueness in ALL aspects of their personality both on and off the pitch. As demonstrated by the success and appeal of this boot, it identifies and targets this group as it was intended.
I have never said that Copas and Kings are the only reference to football culture. Just a more traditional one that you seem to be going toward.
Would the boot be more appropriate in your eyes with little soccer balls printed on it?
What about the Puma v1.06 that has a photo print of grass printed on it..is that more "appropriate" in your eyes?
Still, I would love to hear your solution to appealing to the subculture of football for a design like this? Its all to easy to criticize (and I welcome all constructive criticism), but am interested to know what solution you propose if you so object to this one.
D-" I have tried to iterate to you that I am not displeased with this design because it does not align with my sense of style or preferences; but rather that I don't appreciate the design decisions made."
You are saying the same thing twice. You dont appreciate the design decisions made is the same as saying you dont appreciate the result or style. I dont really see any of your claims addressing the methodology or design process of this project.
D- "This design is unsuccessful because it has no relation to the subculture of futbol."
see above. still Im sorry I dont see your point and you havent been able to point out in your mind what is and isnt valid football subculture from your perspective.
D- "This shoe completely abandon my aesthetic related to soccer and sucks the hind tit of fashion."
and "I am not displeased with this design because it does not align with my sense of style or preferences"
Sounds like you just contradicted yourself. To me this is about your preferred aesthetic.
D- "I don't like the decisions made in order to establish the look"
Can you be more specific?
D- "You could have come up with a thousand different pattern with the thought of just fashion in mind I would not like any of them because they clearly don't reflect soccer"
So, clearly, I would say that your objection is not to the methodolgy, result or practice of the design, but to your objection to the existence of the subculture clearly identified and targeted.
As said, it is fine that you dont participate or identify with the existence of fashion in football. Thats Ok. Much to your dismay however, I think you must admist that others do.
D- "Which if not mistaken(even though I lack of 84 years of experience in the game) is what environment a soccer shoe exists in"
Agreed, it exists in this environment. And nothing about the design contradicts this. I could see if you were arguing a case of form over function, compromise , or other, but truely there is nothing that compromises the environment and intended use in this product. If anything, there is more functionality and performance than in many more traditional football boots!
And that, is the beauty of the design- aesthtic appeal to a particular subculture (not served by the majority of mainstream boots), and function!
R
Parden my typo
D- "This shoe completely abandon -my-(any) aesthetic related to soccer and sucks the hind tit of fashion."
and "I am not displeased with this design because it does not align with my sense of style or preferences"
Sounds like you just contradicted yourself. To me this is about your preferred aesthetic."
moving along
R - "I have never said that Copas and Kings are the only reference to football culture. Just a more traditional one that you seem to be going toward.
Would the boot be more appropriate in your eyes with little soccer balls printed on it?
What about the Puma v1.06 that has a photo print of grass printed on it..is that more "appropriate" in your eyes?"
I have never suggested anything relating to a more tradational style. I know you think this is cutting edge stuff you are doing but I don't think ripping of fashion is a new idea. Plus are you only limited to literal interpretations of the world?
-Rich player are fashionable off the field so we should copy thier wives purses
-Soccerball and grass are the only aesthetics I can see in the game of soccer so that must be all I can do
How about thinking abstractly instead of knocking of other patterns. Anybody can critique and anybody can copy.
In defining the sub-culture of soccer I would begin by looking at the evolution of how the game is played today. Draw inspiration from movement and strategies and styles of play (european verses african; english vs italian; etc.). Evaluate the environment in which the game is played, not the physical one but the emotional and intangable elements that define what the game of soccer is known for(the dycotomy of brutality and gracefulness; fenesse verse rar talent; arogance verse humility). Within those attributes there are a myriad of influence to create a visual vocabulary from in order to truly create an innovative aesthetic that would be all soccer. THe sport of soccer is played out like a greek play every year; if you can't draw inspiration from its very nature you are looking in the wrong directions. I said before that the funcional aspects of this shoe are completely overshadowed by the audatious pattern. If this shoe does really have all of the high functionality that you briefly mentioned why not reflect that in the rest of the design of the shoe.
I understand that you wanted to emmulate fashion trends and how corporate would buy into that because it is a low risk proposition of selling something that has already been established. But come on, did you really feel the need to make it look just like a Louis Vuitton purse? Honestly nobody said during the process "Hey that looks a lot like something I've seen ina magazine."
If not, better late than never that somebody points it out.
Nice to see you seem to have finally agreed with me that the influence of fashion and luxury in player presonalities are a valid subculture and we are in agreement of the meaning of subculture.
I see now however, that you just dont like the subculture I have picked and would rather another one ("environment, movement, emotional, etc.").
All fine and dandy, but that wasnt the project brief here.
Thus, you dont have much of a point criticising the product that results from it.
Granted a different brief, looking at one of the themes you highlight would create a totally different product.
Those themes however are clearly not football subcultures though. Again, check your semantics.
This project is the successful result of a very targeted design brief. Nothing you've said identifies otherwise.
The result is a 100% original design and unique in the market. The tools of context, influence, appropriation and juxtaposition are the trade of designers everywhere.
I'm sorry you don't really understand the profession and practice of design, as evidenced by your critique of the style and pattern application.
R
Oh Richard,
You sound like the quintessential design manager. Exuding the necessary attributes of:
-Shameless self-promotion
-Amazing ability to believe your own press
-A complete lack in ability to objectively evaluate your your ideas
-The extraordinary ability to hear exactly what you what no matter what the other person is actually saying
Best of luck in the future reprodcuing someone elses ideas.
The world waits with baited breath for the next fashion shoe perhaps with a fur collar this time. What amazing contibutions you are bring to the field. But then again you will read this and think I am serious.
Best of luck to you too, complaining in future comments.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, complain in the comment section.
R
R
I've been thinking about our conversation. I realize this is beating a dead horse but I want to try it from a different angle.
I wear designer clothes, as does my wife. i love playing soccer; I am alway looking for shoes that don't look like anything I have seen before, with which I have a decent collection. In a lot of ways I feel that I fit your proposed demographic. I hate this shoe. Why do you think I don't respond to this design.
In a broader scale I don't understand this current design direction. Last week I saw a washer/dryer on Core77 that took the same approach that you did by trying to add the extravagant luxury look. The door looked like a high end car rim. WTF
What does this type of design that borrow motifs from other fields and grafts them on to different concepts add or bring to the field of design? To me it is repackaging of an existing idea. (agree or disagree) It seems like a risk adverse decision that doesn't posses any real originality to it. Should design be fresh and new or is that nieve; are there no new idea out there. Everything is just mixed and matched with something else to create "new" combinations of old things?
Perhaps I didn't express interest before but I would like to learn your persepctive on things because it seems to be the opposite of mine.
Respectfully,
Daniel
I obviously dont know you, your style or taste so it is hard for me to know why this boot doesnt appeal to you personally.
Of course everyone has different tastes, and as Ive mentioned, in the design of this boot, its not meant to appeal to everyone.
What you would call "different" and "fashion" might be different than the target of the 8.4 PIO FGX.
What, for example, do you consider some of the football boots you own that are unique and "dont look like anything else youve seen before?"
I saw the core post with the washing machine you are talking about and agree its kinda ridiculous. Not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also because I believe there is no relation to any lifestyle or culture that people have with their washing machine...it is just a slapped on gold and diamond design on an existing style.
This boot however is different in that it matches the style and personality that some players embrace on and off the pitch, but fills a product spot/choice that hasnt been available.
A players football boot is the only thing they can choose to express their personality, so it makes sense. Dressing up a washing machine in gold when nobody will see it (unless your washing machine is in your living room i suppose), is altogether different.
Design is always borrowing ideas and reapplying things. The trick is to match the intent, the user and the application..you are perhaps right when you say that there is nothing truely new.
Especially in footwear, where essentially shoes and football boots technically have been the same forever. An upper, and outsole, some way to tie or lace it.... what changes is the materials, the details, the design and the features...
Welcome to the shoe business!
Post a Comment
<< Home